Guy Bennett wrote:
><Snip>
> Skies here in Los Angeles tend to be big, bright, blue and cloudless (and
> thus a bit boring). I find it difficult to shoot outdoors in daylight and
> *not* include a bit of sky. Occasionally, the photo may feature a broad
> expanse of sky and, frankly, the 060 filter does a beautiful job. At least
> that has been my experience. The more intense the blue becomes as it rises
> from the horizon, the darker the gray of the sky on the film. In fact, my
> last set of proofs show some 060 skies that seem almost *too* dark to me,
> approaching the look of an orange filter. I first thought the shots were
> underexposed, but that is not the case.
><Snip>
In Ansels books he talks about the north sky being zone V middle grey.
The first bit of info he ever wrote that i questioned i my own head.
Zone V is pretty dark for a sky and a real effect but that's how he printed. ANd
it looks great.
I like my skies to go as dark as possible and they do become an "effect."
Last week in Maui i was shooting water and sky with boats and sail surfers with
both a RED AND a polarizing filter together over my lens which was often the 90
Summicron apo Asph. Always wanted to to that but seldom had the GUTS!!
Shot seven rolls of Delta 100 and 7 rolls of Kodachrome 64 in Maui in 14 daze. A
roll a day. Just like at home almost.
I avoided the Puu Puu platter and gliding down the Volcano on a bike and renting
floating stuff that would have made my skin fall off in sheets.
To all you fat guys out there:
GET A TAN!!
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
updated temporary Website by "Foxy": http://spokenword.to/rabiner/
(consisting of late night E-mail descriptions of photos)